Damage from Brexit has hardly started

is an adequate supply change to meet local needs for the foreseeable future. This proposed scheme will place an intolerable strain on local facilities and will destroy a valuable wildlife habitat.

Elspeth Watt

Secretary Boughton Aluph & Eastwell Residents Association

How many more accolades can Christopher Hudson-Gool lay at my door? (‘Trying to make Brexit work for both sides’, July 16). A ranter, deluded, sarcastic, sneering, all used to try and demean the comments and points I raise.

The phrase tired old chestnut is a case in point. It’s the same strategy as shouting Fake News because it doesn’t suit what he wants to believe.

It doesn’t make the comments made any less factual or true, as has been proven. The evidence is out there.

Every government report commissioned on us leaving the EU indicated Brexit was going to be bad, even with a deal.

The Yellow Hammer document was drawn up to highlight the likely damage this will cause. More tired old chestnuts?

As for people planning to leave for the last four years, of course they have, not a lot of choice really. Forced into a situation whether they like or not by people with the mindset of Mr Hudson-Gool.

The national cost of this planning, the worry and time spent, monies wasted, must be having a massive impact on the lives and health of those planning to leave a system we have traded successfully in for the last 40-plus years, putting us in the ludicrous position of negotiating for a free trade deal without barriers, which we currently enjoy.

If you are on a sinking ship and can’t swim, once you are in the water you are going to flap your arms about in desperation.

The CBI estimates EU membership is worth £3.000 a year to every British family. A return of nearly £10 for every £1 we pay in.

The budget for the EU is just 1% of GDP, compared to about 49% spent by national governments.

Another tired old chestnut? We have hardly started!

Raymond Redding would suggest he was politically impartial.

In reality, the BBC is not even independent. It is funded by the compulsory levy it is empowered to charge to viewers through the licence fee.

In return for that privilege it is required by law to be politically impartial, ie: free from bias of any kind.

In reply to the question Mr Charles puts to me, I have nothing against concepts such as free speech, free markets, freedom of religion, etc, which he seems to suggest are somehow peculiarly “liberal values”.

I do, however, object to the leftwing take on such cornerstones of democracy; much as the country did, quite robustly, at the last election.

But at least Mr Corbyn and his colleagues could say that they were simply submitting their values and opinions to, and for the judgement of, the people. The BBC on the other hand has no mandate at all from the public for its views and opinions.

It just assumes that its political and moral compass is one to which we should all aspire. Antony Ward